spman:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

No, fark your limits. I refuse to accept that answer.

I cannot state this more strongly. My government has no place in regulating speech. You have no place in regulating freedom.

spman:Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?

Now you're moving the goalpost. I thought you were against any activity that presented the possibility of harm to the person undertaking it. If you don't even know what precautions there are, what makes you so sure they weren't taken? Be honest, you weren't thinking about "precautions" when you first made your statement. You were thinking that activities which you agree with are fine, even if they are dangerous to the participants, and activities you find repulsive shouldn't be allowed to exist, and you used the "danger" thing as a way to plausibly oppose the activities you don't like, but didn't consider how that same rationale would apply to activities you like.

spman:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

So do you mind explaining how scat porn is actually dangerous? Because, while there are reasons it is (and consent issues with bestiality), your post was 'We must regulate dangerous things--and I find this icky!'.

What the jury claims is bullshiat too--this isn't exploitation. It's paid work they happen to find icky. If you're going to ban something, at least pretend you have a concrete reason. I find it icky too, but I'm not calling to ban it. There's a reason for that.

Nice. I liked how they kept jury-shopping till they got one they liked.

Its funny, you are only allowed one chance to defend yourself, but you can be dragged into a courtroom over and over again. All the prosecutor needs is to win one game, and they have the series, but the defense needs to have a perfect record and win every game.

SevenizGud:And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.

Oh, come on. Kelo v. new london just expanded on previous rulings such as the Cabrini Green debacle. Kelo argued the wrong issue - the issue isn't whether the government can take your property, that's long been settled. It's whether they compensate you fairly. She should have argued that since the government was taking the land for the express purpose of rezoning it commercial and establishing commercial activities, they should pay her the commercial rate. Then, at least, she would have gotten paid for losing her land, instead of just losing it. Also, more on topic, this is obviously a travesty of justice. If he held women at gunpoint and forced them to commit these acts, then throw the book at him. But since he just paid women for doing things they volunteered to do, where's the crime? Don't women have the freedom to make really bad decisions for a paycheck just like men do?

spman:Jackass is a carefully orchestrated stunt show designed to look more dangerous than it really is.

Most of that crew will be lucky if they can walk correctly by the time they are 50. The endless list of concussions, broken clavicles, burns, busted ribs, shattered hands, and torn urethras are well documented.

The NFL is going to encounter some major changes very soon in the wake of the finding from Junior Seau, bank on it.

there are billions of dollars a year that are generated out there by the NFL that like things just the way they are.

spman:untaken_name: spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

So you are also against skydiving, jogging, mountain climbing, driving cars, flying on airplanes, and taking showers? Did you know that people DIE doing all of those things? THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW!!!11!

Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?

You can't be serious. Consenting adult behavior is seldom rational, but it should never be illegal. If you can't see why the awful writing of the Marquis de Sade should be available to the public, I don't know how to respond.

casual disregard:Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

spman:I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely.

So is auto-erotic asphyxiation. So is visiting CiCi's Pizza. So is having sexual intercourse with a stranger. These are all things which are unsafe, even though there are certain precautions available that could increase your chances of surviving them. They still can't be "done safely". What is your stance on these three activities? Should they be prohibited by law?

spman:If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick,

spman:Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.

Now you're biasing your requirements. I'm not going to voluntarily eat human waste under any circumstances, not even to win an internet argument.

spman:Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?

To answer this question, I'll ask you one: Do you believe that your body is your property, to do with as you decide, or is it the property of some other entity, such as some form of government or "society"? In case you don't want to consider that question, then yes, I believe that activity should be perfectly legal, and I believe that even if perfectly legal, it is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Similarly, I believe prostitution should be legal, and so should playing in the NFL (which is extremely tough on the body).

If there's music/talk on the radio I don't like, I don't tune in.If there's a show or topic on tv that I don't like, I change the channel.If I have a dvd in front of me of something I might find offensive, I don't play it.Websites that contain topics I might find offensive, I don't type them in.If someone is discussing something with me I find offensive, I change the subject or walk away.

As much as I am totally not into scat... I am all for this guy. Some people get their kicks in some disgusting ways.. but if no one is hurt and everyone is willing.. who am I to say no?

My guess is this will get overturned in appeals though, tried 3 times? and the DA is gonna have to try pretty hard to proove that the jurors were NOT simply getting revenge for being forced to watch his videos.

spman:When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

So you are also against skydiving, jogging, mountain climbing, driving cars, flying on airplanes, and taking showers? Did you know that people DIE doing all of those things? THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW!!!11!

Manfred J. Hattan:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

I get the feeling that by "publicly endorse", you mean a handful of corporate interests trying to buy elections under the guise of personhood.

adammpower:Why the fark is the justice department wasting their time on this? is Reagan still president?

Morality in Media is involved.

Morality in Media, Inc. (MIM) is an American, faith-based, non-profit organization that was established in New York in 1962. MIM seeks to raise awareness about the purported harms of pornography and other forms of obscenity on individuals, families and society. MIM also works through constitutional means to curb traffic in obscenity and uphold Judeo-Christian standards of decency in media. The president is Patrick A. Trueman, who is a registered federal lobbyist

spman:We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!

Since when does ingesting e. coli guarantee a hospital trip for a healthy adult? And why did you toss in the weasel phrase "uncontrolled environment" as if there aren't multiple safety practices that can be undertaken? And who would think sustaining an injury because you were repeatedly being punched in the head or did flips off a 60 ft. ski ramp at 75mph was "unforseeable"? And why is it okay to arbitrarily assume that none of these people have insurance or the ability to pay for medical care? And since when can't a person be tested for Hepatitis A? Or vaccinated?

For somebody who's so worried about shiat, you sure seem inclined to deal in it.

Citizens United is about secret endorsements. No one has a problem with public endorsements and reasonable donations. We have a problem with completely unlimited donations and the secrecy of said donations.

Mike Chewbacca:AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Your logic is flawed, because the concept of consent can only be applied to people. Animals, regardless of how we interact with them, are considered chattel.

If consent were able to be applied to animals, then someone having sex with animals is an infinitesimally minor problem when compared with the now huge problem that we have animal slavery, animal murder, etc.

In otherwords, I think being able to string up a pig by its legs, slice its throat with a blade, allow the blood to drain from its body as it dies, only then to harvest its flesh for us to eat... is slightly more of a consent problem than some creeper in a barn. The non-consensual forced-impregnation of animals is probably a bigger concern too. Unless you consider the fact that every single turkey sold in stores is the product of forced impregnation...

As I said, trying to use the concept of consent in a discussion regarding animals is just showing that you don't really understand what you are trying to say.

Uchiha_Cycliste:I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.

Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.

spman:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

1 Fark you2. Fark you to hell3. No there should be no limits right up til someone is actually victimized. NOTHING short of that should be limited.4. Fark your sexual morals5. You don't understand what feces is in the first place. Mostly partially digested food but also bacteria THAT LIVES IN YOUR INTESTINES(population TRIILIONS). So if a person ate their own poo (assuming it just came out and did not land on the floor/dirt/etc), they would be taking in (mostly helptful) bacteria that ALREADY live in their intestines. And also food.

Eating another person's poo caries the risk that they may have some sort of infection(or even parasite) that you can thus catch from them.6. Things like that do NOT need to be stopped. I can see no reason that the role of government in making things illegal should extend beyond stopping you from doing things that harm other people, and conversely stopping other people from doing things that harm you. There is no reason for them to intrude into peoples lives such to stop us from willingly choosing behaviors which only harm ourselves. Be that drinking alcohol(as long as we don't drive), requiring seat belts, or having very odd fetishes.7. Fark you, freedom is more important than your morals.

spman:I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.

Fecal Transplant biatch. Yes, that can involve doctors actually making someone digest feces... to save their life. Seems you have something off in your facts.

I'd also like to point out that dogs will instinctually eat feces they just happen to find laying around(where any type of bacteria has a good chance to multiply within it). They live. It is nutrition.

spman:Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?

You know I'm actually fine with that on a basis of what should be legal. I think anyone offering that deal to the man is a serious piece of shiat, but still if that man is free to choose(with no consequence from refusing) then I don't think there should be a law against it. I think that suicide should be perfectly legal. See #6 above.

If you can't even choose to cease living(no matter your motivations), then you have not any real freedom at all. You might think that is crazy, but if the government alone can make that illegal, then they have made YOUR LIFE their choice. In other words, you don't even own your own life.Authoritarians like you can screw off now.

Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.

So this is what was meant by "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

We already knew that the 1st amendment had limits. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, High Schoolers being punished for signs they held at protests outside of school. School Children not being allowed to protest and say whatever they want at School. Why is it so surprising that we have obscenity limits as well? I'm not asking is it right... I'm asking it is surprising given that, like I said, the 1st amendment isn't absolute and we still live in a relatively puritanical society. Especially with the way the Dominionists and the fundy's have been getting their second wind since Dubya and even more so Obama were elected.

First they came for the Potheads, but I don't smoke so I said nothing. Next they came for the gun nuts, but I don't own guns, so I said nothing. Finally they're here for the dog/pig/chicken/horse farkers and suddenly people give a fark about the bill of rights?

spman:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

By "big first amendment supporter", I assume you mean you're significantly less than mass-deprived. Y'know, the inability to downvote is a good reason that fark loses people to reddit.

Deman:Bumblefark: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.

I post from mobile with a character limit. Sorry if I sound curt, just trying to be succint

Fair enough. I apologize for the dick remark.

The issue for me isn't so much the ability of an animal to consent. The issue for me is that no happy and healthy human being has sex with animals. They just don't.

I certainly don't support jailing people who do have sex with animals, for much the same reasons you allude to. The person has plainly not hurt anyone else, and (while I do think it is abuse to the animal, even if no pain is felt) I don't think the injury justifies something as serious as a loss of civil liberties for the perpetrator. Maybe in a country that treated its inmates more humanely, I'd have a different opinion...but, hey, it's the US.

My problem is with the pornographer. The only possible way a guy make films like this is by exploiting some pretty vulnerable people. A pimp with a camera is still a pimp.

And a pimp that inflicts this sort of humiliation and degradation on his ladies (no matter how enthusiastic they might be about their own debasement) deserves to be stomped to death in the slowest and most painful fashion imaginable.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Heh. I'll give the government this much - they weren't jury shopping. This case has been as weird as the films the guy sold. The first mistrial came because the judge was found to have funny YouTube videos on his work PC, one of which had a donkey with a hard-on chasing a guy with his pants down, which video was inaccurately described at the time as beastiality. That made for some decent Fark threads back in the day.

I'm pretty sure they have. And they doubtless got a schooling in the current jurisprudence regarding obscenity regarding community standards. That jurisprudence badly needs to be revisited to account for the internet. But I can hardly fault the jury for not resetting the standard.

Unfortunately for both the prosecutors and those who would like to see the current precedents revisited the jury also heard testimony that the defendant kept his actors drugged up on coke. That has nothing to do with whether this was obscene under the law or whether anything should be obscene but is exactly the kind of thing that gets juries riled up and willing to convict someone of whatever is available to them. This will be overturned on those narrow grounds.

spman:Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?

Well for one, most of those scat videos are fake, they're using something that resembles shiat. Secondly, as gross as it may seem, there are people who are into these kinds of things. Some women like being shiat on, others like farking dogs/horses. There's women who like being fisted, a horse cock isn't any bigger than a human arm, yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat with that. None of it's my cup of tea, but hey, to each their own.

Pincy:The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.

Plants can't consent. Animals have brains.

I never put one in my cat, but I promise you we can communicate on some level. Likewise I can convince a deaf man without knowing ASL.

The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Manfred J. Hattan:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Manfred J. Hattan:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Manfred J. Hattan:casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

casual disregard:Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.